Why has there been no serious deamalgamation campaign?

[adma]

Well, I hate to deal yet another blow to your fragile map-geek character, but they were in fact NOT depicted as you claim. Starting from the 1851 Ontario census, it clearly states Toronto City is NOT included in York County. Hamilton City is NOT included in Wentworth County. Kingston City is NOT included in Frontenac County. London City is NOT included in Middlesex County. And Bytown (Ottawa) is NOT included in Carleton County.

Unfortunately, I'm finding that links to comprehensive historical census data are devilishly hard to find on-line. Unless you're referring to something like this, where in 1861, those cities are, as you say, NOT included in the county figures--but the trouble is, that is freaking Eighteen Sixty-One. It was still Canada West at the time.. However, by the time you get to census publications from 1961, They. Are. Included. And because, perhaps, some things aren't directly on-line, I'll take you to a library and show you. For 1961. And 1966. And 1971, and so on.

Heck, in that same link, scroll down to 2001--oddly, there are no county figures "in between" 1861 and 2001 there--you'll notice: the Brant figure's inclusive of Brantford, Middlesex inclusive of London, Frontenac inclusive of Kingston, etc etc. And not as a result of regionalization or megaamalgamation, either--the same "county" area would have been covered in census figures for 1961, before regions and megaamalgamations became epidemic. IOW governance-minutiae aside, by the time you got to and well into the 20th century, that had become the standard geo-statistical-and-whatever-else "county" definition. The Canada West-era norm was an anachronism by then. So, you get a hint of what I'm talking about even there--in which case, to insist upon a 1851/61 template is taking your argument to a "Baroque/Classical on original instruments; otherwise you're corrupting the original intent" extreme...

 

[freshcutgrass]

by the time you get to census publications from 1961, They. Are. Included. And because, perhaps, some things aren't directly on-line, I'll take you to a library and show you. For 1961. And 1966. And 1971, and so on.

That's just silly, as the Metropolitan Toronto Act clearly severed all existing York County municipalities of Metro from York County in 1953.

I don't really need to see a map of York County that includes Toronto....I've already seen one. I don't know why Toronto would seem lumped into York County on maps, but it doesn't seem unusual to show Toronto, and I can see where people might make that assumption. Perhaps the notion of a City-County separated from its original County was too difficult for people to understand?

But common sense will tell you it couldn't be part of York County, as being part of a county would require you, by definition, to fall under its administrative jurisdiction, which old Toronto or Metro clearly didn't. You are either part of a county or you are not. You seem to suggest there is some kind of magical Limbo where you can be both.

 

[adma]

That's just silly, as the Metropolitan Toronto Act clearly severed all existing York County municipalities of Metro from York County in 1953.

Ah, but as I've already implied before, Metro Toronto was the exception--from the time of its inception, it was a indeed a separate entity from York County, and was treated as such within municipal directories, and by the census.. But, as such, when it comes to, well, the Metro Toronto era, it was virtually alone--the only thing comparable was the Regional Municipality of Sudbury (now Greater Sudbury) which was legally separated from the District of Sudbury upon its formation in 1973.

I don't really need to see a map of York County that includes Toronto....I've already seen one. I don't know why Toronto would seem lumped into York County on maps, but it doesn't seem unusual to show Toronto, and I can see where people might make that assumption. Perhaps the notion of a City-County separated from its original County was too difficult for people to understand?

Yes, and two quasi-examples exist--the aforementioned Metro Toronto and Sudbury. And because prior to mega-amalgamation, they were composed of individual municipalities in their own right...even they don't quite count as such.

But common sense will tell you it couldn't be part of York County, as being part of a county would require you, by definition, to fall under its administrative jurisdiction, which old Toronto or Metro clearly didn't. You are either part of a county or you are not. You seem to suggest there is some kind of magical Limbo where you can be both.

Metro clearly didn't. Toronto...not so clearly.

And regarding said "limbo": go argue it (posthumously or not) with whomever was in charge of compiling past censuses or provincial municipal directories--and don't go back to the 1850s or 1860s. Go to recent times: go to recent decades. I'll offer to go with you to a municipal reference library to show you proof. And if you still want to make a "I'm right; they're wrong, or at least they're misleading" argument, then...shove it.

All any of this proves is that it takes a lot more than the minutiae of administrative gobbledygook to "define", in some broad and substantive way, what is or isn't a county over time--even if some of it wound up being more by default of big-tent convenience (i.e. for geographic/census/municipal-directory purposes, it's more "convenient" to bundle a Separated Town such as Smiths Falls with Lanark County than to assign it a separate page). Well, face it; sometimes, those default/convenience circumstances migrate into a certain reality--misleading or not.

So, perhaps, we're talking here about dueling "common senses": one administrative, and one extra-administrative--and as ye censuses and municipal directories have proven, the extra-administrative definitions shouldn't be treated too lightly. Then again, maybe this whole discussion reminds us of how perhaps in our municipally fine-tuned days of regional governments and mega-amalgamations, the old Ontario county/district system at large comes across as a weak-kneed anachronism--the sort where such commonplace jurisdictional confusion is actually par for the course. (Thus the present day "city of" Brantford vs "municipality of" Brant County circumstance, which is probably more an affirmation of how Brant County as we historically knew it is now altogether obsolete. No more county; just a city and a mega-municipality, the latter of which inherits the "County" label for old time's sake. Kind of like a cartoon version of your city-county-separation logic.)

 

[freshcutgrass]

I'll offer to go with you to a municipal reference library to show you proof.

And if you think you will be showing me some document that actually states that the City of Toronto was part of York County, as a member municipality of York County, then your "proof" will prove to be quite elusive I think.

and don't go back to the 1850s or 1860s. Go to recent times: go to recent decades.

I have no idea why you poo-poo things like the Baldwin Act as out-of-date or something....considering it remained in effect from 1849 to 2001 (when Harris replaced it). Are you suggesting that Toronto was separate, and then absorbed into York County at a later date or something? That would make even less sense.

All any of this proves is that it takes a lot more than the minutiae of administrative gobbledygook to "define", in some broad and substantive way, what is or isn't a county over time

There's nothing "wonky" about administrative governance...it's very strictly defined.

even if some of it wound up being more by default of big-tent convenience (i.e. for geographic/census/municipal-directory purposes, it's more "convenient" to bundle a Separated Town such as Smiths Falls with Lanark County than to assign it a separate page).

This is the only explanation that makes any sense.

Well, face it; sometimes, those default/convenience circumstances migrate into a certain reality--misleading or not.

I completely acknowledge your misleading reality, and see how you may have arrived there. But you are completely guilty of ignoring the logic I have pointed out, in favour of your boyhood map-geek fantasies you are not willing to give up.

Then again, maybe this whole discussion reminds us of how perhaps in our municipally fine-tuned days of regional governments and mega-amalgamations, the old Ontario county/district system at large comes across as a weak-kneed anachronism

Oh I dunno...the County administration still makes a lot of sense in a lot of Ontario (as in where I grew up...Oxford County). It just doesn't make sense in the GTA, which is why it was replaced with something more appropriate....urban Regions. Not that either Metro, or it's later cousin...Regions were particularly successful at what they were created to do.

Metro was fairly successful within its boundaries, and rightfully heralded across NA as the great model for urban government and planning. Its one major failure was that it was too small and unable to encompass the entire Toronto-centred growth. Nobody ever imagined the size of the growth beyond Metro's borders.

The Regions were mostly a failure, as they were too little too late. The creation of Peel Region didn't exactly result in a model for urban growth, if Mississauga and Brampton are any indication. And Peel Region is probably the best of the regions.

 

[adma]

I completely acknowledge your misleading reality, and see how you may have arrived there. But you are completely guilty of ignoring the logic I have pointed out, in favour of your boyhood map-geek fantasies you are not willing to give up.

Except that while being a map geek can enable one to comprehend more acutely, it isn't just a map-geek fantasy--or at least, we're dealing with dueling geekerys here: map/census, and political/administrative. Look: plain and simple--geographically speaking, in Ontario, other than Metro Toronto-type circumstances, and regardless of administrative minutiae, cities were commonly understood to be de facto components of counties, and were treated and presented to and understood by the general public that doesn't give a flying whoozis about administrative/jurisdictional minutiae as such. And the only sorts who were really screw-you hung up about "oh, no, the City of Peterborough couldn't be a part of Peterborough County" were those who wanted to frame things into a city-vs-county (or Toronto-vs-boroughs, or 416-vs-905) never-the-twain-shall-meet war. But, at least in casual geographic terms, they were a part. But it wasn't just casual--they were treated as such for the purposes of the general public by less-than-casual authorities. Because--geography transcends, or at least it transcended, administration. (And I suppose nobody ever thought that actually depicting cities as geographically separate, the way that Virginia authorities have come to do over time. Otherwise, Ontario's municipal directories would have had separate pages for the Smiths Fallses of this world, much as Virginia's equivalent would for a Falls Church or Manassas Park. Well, that's the way it's come to be; and if you think that Ontario historically f'ed up on this account by misleading casual folk through maps, road signs, municipal directories, etc, then tough bananas.)

Oh I dunno...the County administration still makes a lot of sense in a lot of Ontario (as in where I grew up...Oxford County).

Though interestingly enough, Oxford County underwent a hybrid quasi-regionalization in the 1970s--sort of like, fine-tuning the "County" concept through lessons learned from Ontario's regional experiments, yet without the heavy-handedness of, say, either the Region of Haldimand-Norfolk before it, or the single-tier Haldimand and Norfolk County mega-municipalities after it. So it doesn't quite count, because they fixed the historical county-definition ambiguities already--indeed, on that count, I'd almost be tempted to label Oxford "Ontario's last county", sort of like how East York bluffed into being "Canada's only borough".

But generally speaking, maybe it's worth reflecting upon counties being historically weaker entities in Canada at large than in the States, where their boundaries and all can be "binding" to the point of absurdity, i.e. census metropolitan areas that stretch miles into the desert because San Bernardino County happens to stretch miles into the desert. Maybe that's why in Virginia, the Independent Cities are actually depicted as independent on county-subdivision maps, whether official or Rand McNally--it's the American Way. (It's no accident that in Canada--much as in New England, where the county system's been historically "weakest"--census metro areas are defined through municipalities, not counties/regions/what have you.)

 

[Dan416]

I wouldn't mind Peel, York, Durham and Halton regions being merged into one large regional authority. That body could run GO, the TTC, all the transit authorities, police, etc.

 

[adma]

Perhaps one thing about this discussion is that it reminds us of how these erstwhile ambiguous definitions of "counties" are probably a strong explanation of why the municipal restructurings of the past forty odd years came to be.

And it wasn't just in Ontario: Quebec underwent a thorough top-to-bottom regional-municipality redraw, the old UK shire structure went the way of the shilling, etc. Maybe Ontario's problem is that it both went too far (i.e. in applying overwrought Metro-inspired regional formulae) and not far enough (i.e. in doing so incrementally rather than in one fell swoop a la Quebec). (And if the Davis-era regional restructurings suffered from being overstructured, the Harris-era megaamalgamations suffered from being understructured--hyperactive over-bureaucracy versus hyperactive anti-bureaucracy.)

But again--take my word for it. It may come across as a against-all-governing-logic solecism to modern-day poli-sci students, but traditionally in Ontario, cities were considered to be components of counties, geographically speaking. Geographic definitions ruled, even if the actuality of governance seems, to modern eyes, to have suggested otherwise--then again, to modern eyes, the traditional Ontario county might now seem a Frost-era wardens'n'reeves anachronism whose geographic parameters are only meaningful to an Andy Rooney demographic that still uses land lines and Yellow Pages.

In that sense, it's (as I've suggested before) a little like the old King's Highway network that was mostly decimated by Harris-era offloading--sure, there was a geographical-defining-matrix "history" to the old highway numbers that pleased historically-minded road trippers (like myself, harrumph harrumph); but practically speaking, given that county and municipal roads were now all too often as good as if not better than King's Highways, the network had by and large lost all meaning...

 

[howl]

The mapping or census information is useless in determining the administrative structure of Ontario counties and cities. What’s important is the political framework. The Warden of York County has never had authority over the Mayor of Toronto or authority over any lands within were in the City of Toronto. They were separate and equal political positions. The land areas were mutually exclusive. The Warden of York County did have authority over the Reeve of the Town of Markham and the Reeve of East Gwillimbury etc.. Those towns and townships where politically part of the County of York. The county system is a rural system designed to meet the needs of a rural population and cities were almost always a separate political entity. A problem only arises when cities become almost as big as counties.

The ‘revolutionary’ part of the regional municipality system was that it put a ‘super’ mayor in charge of the whole region which included not only townships and towns, but also cities. The difference between the old County of Peel and the new Regional Municipality of Peel is that the RM can include the Cities of Mississauga and Brampton. Under the old system the County of Peel could only have included what is now the Town of Caledon.

 

[freshcutgrass]

The Warden of York County has never had authority over the Mayor of Toronto or authority over any lands within were in the City of Toronto. They were separate and equal political positions. The land areas were mutually exclusive.

Well, that's not entirely true. The Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board (created under the 1953 Metropolitan Toronto Act) had planning jurisdiction over certain territory of adjoining Townships outside of Metro. The MTPB reported only to Metro Council...York County was not officially involved in this process, despite the fact it included territory that fell under its jurisdiction.

So, you could say Metro was actually a slightly more politically superior entity than a County. Even before Metro, the "old" City of Toronto had planning authority over its adjoining York County territory, only it was more of a inter-municipal body.

But the point is...this has always been a city/urban driven process. "Counties" seem to take a back seat in the process (or no seat at all), and just sit back and await their fate. Poor old York County has been chipped away at since its creation in 1849 (from an even larger Home District).

Cities are very powerful entities. It's no wonder the provincial government is wary of them.

 

[adma]

One other thing: IIRC, prior to the 1966/67 Metro reorganization, the municipal-directory pages were shown as "York County--Metropolitan Toronto" and "York County--Excluding Metropolitan Toronto".

The mapping or census information is useless in determining the administrative structure of Ontario counties and cities. What’s important is the political framework. The Warden of York County has never had authority over the Mayor of Toronto or authority over any lands within were in the City of Toronto. They were separate and equal political positions. The land areas were mutually exclusive. The Warden of York County did have authority over the Reeve of the Town of Markham and the Reeve of East Gwillimbury etc.. Those towns and townships where politically part of the County of York. The county system is a rural system designed to meet the needs of a rural population and cities were almost always a separate political entity. A problem only arises when cities become almost as big as counties.

But to Joe & Jane Schmoe, hand-wringing over the details of "administrative structure" and "political framework" was beside the point--which is why, for the sake of geographic convenience and otherwise, the cities were presented and commonly accepted as parts of the counties they were politically/administratively separate from. (With an assist from the fact that these "separate" cities acted as county seats--then again, so are a number of Virginia's Independent Cities. But unlike in Virginia, the Ontario powers that be never made a big deal about said separation--perhaps as a means to smooth urban/rural conflict?)

So ultimately, regarding the traditional popular definition of the Ontario county, it's less about politics (other than maybe the conflict-smoothing issue), than semiotics. But semiotics can get tripped up by politics--and that's where subsequent regional-and-otherwise municipal restructurings kick in.

 

[howl]

But counties, cities and regional municipalities ARE political entities and nothing else. Their purpose is to define a geographical area over which some form of governor or elected council can pass laws and collect taxes. When the political boundaries change the counties, cities and regional municipalities change.

I can understand your argument that in some cases there is some historic memory of old political entities and boundaries, and these may even live on in census tracts, and phone books, but this thread is about amalgamation and de-amalgamation which is directly connected to the current political nature of our municipal system. Brantford and Brant county have always been separate political entities. Just because people often think of Brantford as being within Brant County because it is geographically surrounded by the county doesn't mean it is within the county in any sort of official way, in the same way that Washington DC in not in Maryland, or that is not Monaco in France.

 

[adma]

But counties, cities and regional municipalities ARE political entities and nothing else. Their purpose is to define a geographical area over which some form of governor or elected council can pass laws and collect taxes. When the political boundaries change the counties, cities and regional municipalities change.

I can understand your argument that in some cases there is some historic memory of old political entities and boundaries, and these may even live on in census tracts, and phone books, but this thread is about amalgamation and de-amalgamation which is directly connected to the current political nature of our municipal system. Brantford and Brant county have always been separate political entities. Just because people often think of Brantford as being within Brant County because it is geographically surrounded by the county doesn't mean it is within the county in any sort of official way, in the same way that Washington DC in not in Maryland, or that is not Monaco in France.

However, *again*. It's not just "census tracts"--it's the whole freaking census. Statistics Canada always categorized Brantford as part of Brant County--the US Census *never* depicted DC as part of Maryland. (Well, now, "Brantford" and "Brant County" are separate municipalities--but that's just as well a declaration that the old County of Brant is defunct.)

Again, as I've suggested. Semiotics over politics here--and maybe, the politics of semiotics. Even if Brant and Brantford operated in different political spheres, they were commonly portrayed as a unit. Think of it as where historical social geography intersects with political geography. Maybe the *reality* was more along the lines of DC viz. Maryland--but nobody sought to carve that into common geographic stone. But the ambiguities it all created; well, thus explaineth the fixes required through "the current political nature of our municipal system"--which in regional or megamunicipality form, has meant reinforcing the "perceived" unity (or disunity) of city and county...

 

[howl]

Actually, contrary to what howl seems to imply, Ontario *didn't* have Virginia-style Independent Cities. That is, while city status might have granted Brantford a certain autonomy it wouldn't have had as a town or village, it was still understood to be part of Brant County. (Look it up in old municipal directories, censuses, etc: Brantford's listed under Brant County. It's only with Harris mega-amalgamation that everything was f'ed up; so now Brant County is a mega-municipality, and Brantford's a megamunicipality, and the actual old-style county, as opposed to the present dummy-named municipality, might as well be defunct in all but a statistical sense, kind of like how New England counties are.)

I think we need to go back to this statement. Even though some people perceive Brantford as being "within" Brant County, even by Census Canada, it is, in fact, very similar to a "Virginia-Style" independent city. Up until you made this point people were talking about the political structure of Counties and Cities in Ontario and how they related to each other. How people misperceive the actual political relationship is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Statistics Canada always categorized Brantford as part of Brant County--the US Census *never* depicted DC as part of Maryland.

Since I doubt it was Statscan's intent to mislead you (and not everybody was mislead), I would conclude that they underestimated some of the public's knowledge of the information they were presenting. Even though they never actually said something is a "part" of something else when it is not possible. That part was invented by the "mislead".

 

[adma]

Since I doubt it was Statscan's intent to mislead you (and not everybody was mislead), I would conclude that they underestimated some of the public's knowledge of the information they were presenting. Even though they never actually said something is a "part" of something else when it is not possible. That part was invented by the "mislead".

I think you're being too much the cynical post-Y2K poli-sci student here, viewing everything through the prism of present "obvious" logic, much like those of a socio-cultural bent would view past attitudes t/w women's roles or homosexuality. Because this so-called "misleading" was actually quite universal to the point where, like the misspelling of "Carlton", it became its own truth. Whatever the underlying political structure, as geographic divisions, Ontario's counties and cities were universally presented as one. Maybe it's naivety; maybe it's craft; and maybe there was some clause I'm not presently in a position to seek that "sealed the deal". But: geography transcended politics--and this is something that merits socio-politi-cultural dissection: of why the universal "official" public face of the Ontario county--as borne out through the aforementioned censuses/maps/municipal directories, etc--included cities, even if subtleties of administrative organization (like, the irrelevance of the York County Warden to anything Toronto-related) suggested otherwise.

My suspicion is that the powers that be didn't sweat it. They were fine with the all-encompassing geographic definition; and any "separate" status for cities and certain towns was treated like an oldest child who'd moved out of the household, yet was still "family". It may seem implausibly "loose" to today's poli-sci types; but such is as it was.

You have to remember: we're a little spoiled silly today by the much more systematic administrative structures behind today's regions and megamunicipalities. The geographic "identity politics" is much clearer today. Yet on the other hand, there's an odd drab colourlessness about today's municipal structures compared to the plethora of cities, towns, villages, townships, police villages, etc of yore...in a way, the whys and wherefores of "administrative structure" are all they have to fall back on. Such is the current standard; and perhaps, it isn't surprising that those overly conditioned by the current standard seek to define previous common political definitions through that template.

Heck, re "drab colourlessness": compare my aforementioned official provincial maps of the 1960s, with their "coloured" counties and communities marked by population size, with the present standard of listless dreary grey lines which may or may not mark municipal or county or regional borders, as if any average Joe cares anymore in our age of GPS...